W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Technology specific techniques

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:29:52 -0700
To: <boland@nist.gov>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BF692360.65A%lguarino@adobe.com>

And, of course, I'm worried about how the techniques for technologies that
aren't being reviewed by the working group, such as PDF, fit into this
scheme. We can't include the PDF techniques in the guide doc, but I want to
clarify the wording, somehow, so that there is no implication that if a
technology that isn't listed below, this means that the WG deems that it
that cannot satisfy the success criterion.


On 10/5/05 4:32 AM, "boland@nist.gov" <boland@nist.gov> wrote:

> 
> What is the process if one wants to use techniques not yet discovered by the
> WCAG WG to claim that those techniques are "sufficient" for satisfying the
> stated SCs?   Is there a process by which such techniques can be "added" to
> the Guide Docs in the future, after review by the WCAG WG?   In other words,
> is there a Guide Doc management system in place (it seems that these may
> be "living" documents, in which the list of techniques included is likely to
> change over time)?   Perhaps we would want to include somewhere in the Guide
> Doc structure an encouragement to submit previously-undiscovered techniques
> for consideration for inclusion in future (editions, versions?) of Guide Docs?
> 
> 
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
>  
> Quoting Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:
> 
>> 
>> The only difference you have is that the words "listed below" are removed.
>> I'm not sure that changes things except to make it unclear where they would
>> look.  Ah,  I see what you are getting at.
>> 
>> Hmmm
>> 
>> Please note that those are the only techniques that can be used for the
>> section where this sentence lies.   This sentence is in the section that
>> says the following options are deemed sufficient.  That sufficiency is based
>> on the list of techniques that are in the guide doc.  You can use other
>> techniques - but they are not necessarily deemed sufficient by the WG.  And
>> the working group can deem that things not listed are part of what they
>> considered sufficient since they didn't consider them at the time.
>> 
>> So it is true that other things can be used.  But other things can't be used
>> if the reader wants to use the "sufficiency" statements in the guide doc.
>> 
>> 
>> So in that section the words "listed below" are accurate and necessary.  But
>> we may have to change the front of the sentence to limit the use of the list
>> to just the sufficiency statements so that we do not give the impression
>> that you have identified as potential.
>> 
>> That said, lets see......
>> 
>> How about
>> 
>> 
>> "The technology specific techniques included in these sufficiency statements
>> are listed below.  Choose one that matches the technology you are using."
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Gregg
>> 
>>  -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>> Of Loretta Guarino Reid
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:23 PM
>> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> Subject: Technology specific techniques
>> 
>> 
>> The template we have been using and many of the proposed guide docs contain
>> the following sentence:
>> 
>> "For the technology-specific techniques, see the options for the technology
>> you are using listed immediately below."
>> 
>> I think it would be easy to read this to mean that only the listed
>> technologies in the guide doc can be used, and I don't think this is what we
>> intend. I'd like to suggest replacing it with the sentence
>> 
>> "For the technology-specific techniques, see the options for the technology
>> you are using."
>> 
>> Loretta
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 13:30:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT